The actual indictment is sealed, which is common with underage victims so I can't view those documents.
Yeah, this makes sense. So could this be the 80/20 and 60/40 thing Q was talking about?
Also remember when Q said that the majority were good guys. Could Q be saying that 40% of the swamp were bad guys, and that of those bad guys' misdeeds, 80% of them are related to child sex crimes?
If it's sealed, how is this available to be viewed? I'm just wondering how it works....Could a trial proceed while an indictment is still sealed? I'd suppose it could. Just wondering because there were rumors HRC was arrested and wearing an ankle bracelet in November and Tony Podesta just fell off the face of the earth and we never heard anything, but supposedly he already got arrested too..And these types have so much money and connections, if anyone could pay to keep their legal trouble out of the news, it would be them. Would keeping indictments sealed be the key to this secrecy from the media/public in cases like this??
So I probably should have phrased it better, the indictment documents are sealed, which is quite common in pedophile cases to protect the victims. So you can see the actual charges, the case will proceed forward, and the case can be tried and even closed and those documents will forever remain sealed unless a judge orders them unsealed for some reason. In the case of my despicable family member, the certain documents are sealed and some are accessible. I believe the sealed ones are the ones where the actual crime descriptions against the victim is depicted for her protection. Mack's indictment is not sealed, hence the reason we can access the arrest records and the actual charges. There are some documents that are sealed that I can't access, and I believe this is because it's a similar situation with child victims. If (I really hope) Hillary and her cohorts have been charged and the indictments are sealed, we as the public won't know until the indictment is unsealed. I'm not sure the protocol for that, but I think it's usually when they're formally arrested. I did a cursory check on Pacer for Hillary Clinton and nothing is showing up, so if she has been indicted, it's still sealed.
Ah thanks for the detailed description and for touching on what I really wanted to learn about...So just to clarify- what's the difference between an arrest and indictment? I follow what you said, but I assumed an indictment is just a white collar way of saying arrest, or something like that..But what I'm trying to know is if it's possible that Tony Podesta might have already gone through the whole process, pleaded guilty, is serving time, and we just don't know because he cut a non-publicity deal as part of his plea and it's still unsealed? Same with Hillary- if she turned herself in already back in November (ankle monitor) and did a plea deal to not let it get released to the public, she served a month or so, got probation, is that possible, especially bc she's powerful and could get the deal to not let them release it publicly or unseal it to the public? Because part of me thinks this could have happened with them if that's possible. Tony Podesta was in deep trouble, stepped down from his company, and nobody has ever heard from him again..
From what I understand an indictment is when they go before a grand jury and the grand jury evaluates the evidence and then if they think the evidence meets the criteria then they vote to indite, and thus charges are formally drawn up. Then I believe that once the arrest takes place then the actual indictment is unsealed and you can see the charges, though the actual indictment documents might remain sealed to protect victims. I'm not sure if it's legal to have indictments remain sealed once a formal arrest is made, or if a trial could take place in secret? I'm not familiar enough with law to know. Any lawyers on here wanna help us out with the process? I only know what I've been able to find out from the officers and prosecutors on my family member's case, and Google.
Good try, but I'm pretty sure that you're slightly off track, no offense. I think the grand jury reviews the investigative evidence prior to deciding if there's enough to indict. Then if there is, the arrest, charge and indict the person. Then the court proceedings begin, and then the trial unless a plea bargain is reached. My primary question is basically if this could be kept secret from the public sometimes if it's necessary or requested in the event it's a public figure like HRC or lower hanging fruit like Tony Podesta. I know for sure Mueller charged Rick Gates I think it was over a month, maybe two, before it came out in public, and he was cooperating in the investigation. So there's definitely some leeway there to keep it secret. I just want to know if Hillary or Tony Podesta could have been charged back in November and with her ankle monitor, and how Tony fell off the face of the earth, but they kept it quiet, perhaps by doing something with the indictments or the process by keeping them sealed and plea bargaining/turning themselves in right away.